Dear Tintin and Camille,

I hope you are aware of what you’ve done. Are you? Let me tell you.

Tintin, you’ve shown that there are parents who badly need gender and sexuality education (the right kind of education, mind you). Sorry, you can’t squeeze your way out of this. Whatever you do from this point forward, however many sorry’s you spew out, your ‘article’ has already proven that there are parents who have little to zero understanding of how to handle the gender and sexuality aspects of raising a child. That’s what you’ve done.

Camille, you’ve shown that there are people who blur the lines between what they learned in training and what is their personal opinion. It’s one thing to pepper your opinion with faith and traditional beliefs. But to use your credentials to mask your medieval musings is completely unacceptable. Starting today, we’re going to be a lot more careful of you and other ‘psychologists’ who have an opinion on anything. That’s what you’ve done.

Tintin and Camille, you’ve proven that there are people like you who have not learned from the mistakes of Miriam Quiambao, Anthony Taberna, and Manny Pacquiao. But do you know what else you’ve done?

You’ve proven that there are real experts out there who will expose your misguided truths. And you’ve also proven that we will no longer take this sitting down, that this ignorant and hateful attitude shall no longer go unnoticed with impunity. You made me feel good because after all these years of fighting for equality, there are still tireless LGBT activists and allies willing to stand up for what is right. You made me wonder what greater challenges we can overcome. You made me believe that my children (if I decide to have them) might actually be in good hands when they grow up. You made me believe that a future without people like you might be closer than I thought. You made me look forward to that. That’s what you’ve done.

And for that, from the bottom of my homosexual heart, thank you!

A gay son with a loving, informed, and educated mother,
Ron de Vera

more from the same writer: original | op-ed | blog

–

Image from digitaljournal.com

“The mass of steel started to crawl away from the train station. The smell of rust was drowned out by a deafening noise that signaled our departure. I reached for the nearest handrail as the ground beneath me started to move. The whole cabin swayed to a rhythm that was random and measured at the same time. In between sobs, my heartbeat tried to catch up with this rhythm but it soon took its own cadence. I was three or four years old. It was a few years before the people power revolution. But all I cared about was where my mother was. And the man seated next to me, who claimed to be my grandfather, had promised that she would be waiting at the next stop.”

—

This is my earliest memory. I wrote it as part of a writing challenge I accepted for 2013. I have also secretly doubled up this challenge by seeing if I could consistently frame anything I wrote with an LGBT perspective. But my earliest memory does not have anything gay about it, unless I turn it into fiction and “gay it up.” I am, after all, a gay writer. I have also occasionally introduced myself as a gay activist. I am also a freethinker, a photographer, and a teacher. But I have never called myself a gay freethinker, a gay photographer, or a gay teacher.

So when is it appropriate to make something or someone ‘gay’ simply by adding the ‘G’ word? If you’re gay and you’re reading this, does it make you a gay reader? And as my partner (who happens to be gay, so perhaps I should say my gay partner) properly posited, should someone self-identify as a transgender in order to be a transactivist? And how about marriage? Why do some people reject the term gay marriage and prefer marriage equality?

Ascribing labels is a basic concept in identity politics and serves multiple functions. Minority groups use labels to claim an identity, or define an experience that would otherwise be assumed to belong to the majority. For example, we do not usually hear someone say “I am a straight statistician” as the heterosexual majority has made us assume that everyone is straight unless they say they are not. But one could be a gay statistician if one so chooses because it is his way of claiming an identity in a field dominated by straight men. Guy Branum, in his article “Yes, Nate Silver, You Are a Gay Statistician,” slams Silver for rejecting the word gay in his title. By dropping the word ‘gay’, Silver is attempting to detach his identity from his experience. It is as if calling himself a gay statistician would require him to use a pink computer and to “gay up” his calculations.

This same hesitation is shared by those who do not embrace the term gay marriage. According to detractors, if we follow this logic, we would have to append the word ‘gay’ to everything that is currently not accessible to gay people. We would have to fight for gay adoption, gay inheritance, gay visitation rights, gay immigration, and so on. It would seem too obvious to point out that the labels matter less than the actual benefits and improvements to our lives.

This is where identity politics comes in conflict with political correctness. Political correctness is a hungry monster that devours unsuspecting words to sustain its relevance. It then spits out neutral labels that have been stripped of their rich history, political conviction, socio-cultural value, and ultimately, their original identity. And that, to me, is a pity.

Don’t get me wrong, I acknowledge that political correctness has its place in social discourse. In fact, for the sake of interpersonal relationships and political harmony, I will continue to use marriage equality and whatever other permutations. However, I will keep calling myself a gay writer. If I wear a rainbow shirt and use a fluffy pen when writing about gay characters, it would be of little to no consequence. What matters is that I am a passionate writer who also happens to be proud of his sexual orientation. And if I become successful, I would prefer to be remembered as a successful gay writer and not simply a successful writer. Perhaps, when the time comes, I would figure out how I can be a gay freethinker, a gay photographer, or a gay teacher. For now, I am happy being a gay writer.

—

“The train behind me sped away taking with it all worries I had. In place of my mother, there he stood, the boy of my dreams.”

[ Read original article here | Read more from the same writer here ]

Inquirer’s article on gays enrolling in the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) shows us that although LGBT activism has gained traction in the fight for equality, there is still a long way to go.

Sexual Orientation is not Gender Expression

It’s a well known fact that the general public (LGBTs included) is still struggling with terms and definitions related to LGBT topics. This is made even more difficult when these concepts (most of which come from the west) have no equivalent in our culture. Sometimes it is because there is no direct translation and sometimes it is because of differences in popular stereotypes. Take for example the following statement from Inquirer’s “PMA now open to gays but don’t show it“:

“From experience, there are (gay PMA graduates). Maybe he was able to graduate because during the training in the Academy there was no opportunity for his (gay) tendencies (to show). When he left the academy that’s when it came out,” – Captain Agnes Flores, PMA spokesperson

Flores was clearly referring to being effeminate (gender expression) when she said “(gay) tendencies” and “it came out” not to being gay (sexual orientation). This is because in Philippine culture, the effeminate gay male (who, at times, is actually a transgender woman) is the more visible stereotype than the masculine gay male. Thus, Filipinos associate being gay (sexual orientation) with being effeminate (gender expression). What Flores fails to understand is being gay has more to do with attraction and not outward expression.

In the Absence of Specifics, Generalize!

I have yet to hear of an institution which is able to or dares to profile its students based on sexual orientation. But if PMA’s claims are accurate, then it may very well be the first.

“In any case, they say, gay cadets eventually leave the PMA anyway before completing the four-year course because they cannot stand the rigors of training.”

“Flores claimed that school officials had observed that gay cadets apparently could not cope with the demands of training.”

It would be interesting to request data that would show what percentage of the PMA dropouts are gay. In simplistic terms, this is asking how many dropouts said “I’m dropping out because this is too much for a gay man to handle.”

Yes, getting these data is moot and academic. But Flores not only has a responsibility to ensure her claims are based on facts, she also has the responsiblity to ensure that her statements do not put a specific sector of society in a bad light. By claiming that gay men are not able to stand the rigors of training, she has effectively made gay men inferior to straight men even without factual basis. This, by the way, is a discriminatory act. And if House Bill 1483 or 515 (both Anti-Discrimination Bills) were already in force, any PMA officer who dismisses a cadet using Flores’ baseless claim would face imprisonment of up to 6 years or pay a fine of 250 to 500 thousand Pesos.

Perpetuating Gender Norms

Discrimination is often justified by invoking social constructs. It may be summarized by the statement “I am not discriminating against gay men and lesbian women, I just expect them to act like straight men and women because that’s what society accepts.” What people do not realize is that gender norms reinforce discrimination because it forces people to meet expectations created by heterosexuals.

“So anyone who displays gay behavior would be reprimanded because that’s not what is expected of them. They enter our institution and they are to follow the rules and regulations of our organization,” she stressed.

This statement needs careful unpacking so I will dissect it one homophobic thought at a time.

“So anyone who displays gay behavior would be reprimanded…” – This is where I would ask Flores to define what is “gay behavior” and what is the corresponding reprimand. Similarly, I would also ask if females are reprimanded for displaying “lesbian behavior.” And finally I would ask for a report on the kinds of “gay behavior” they have actually documented.

“…because that’s not what is expected of them…” – So what is expected of them to display, “straight behavior”? Taking off from the previous paragraph, I would also ask for a definition of “straight behavior.” But semantics aside, the following statement takes the cake as far as discrimination is concerned:

“…they are to follow the rules and regulations of our organization,” – If a group of people is singled out by rules and regulations solely because of this group’s gender expression, then ladies and gentlemen, that is discrimination.

Unintended Discrimination is Still Discrimination

My gut tells me that Flores has no malicious intent. It may be that she is not aware of the slimy worm of discrimination slithering in the core of the pretentious apple of tolerance she is parading about. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, unintended discrimination is still discrimination. And while half-baked tolerance is still the lesser evil than an outright ban, there is still much to be desired as far as the LGBT education of these PMA officers is concerned. We can only wish Flores and the rest of the PMA would one day understand the true meaning of acceptance and equality. Until that day becomes reality, equality among men in uniform will remain a fantasy.

[ Read original article here | Read more from the same writer here ]

_{Image Credit: Philippine Information Agency}

[ Read original article here | Read more from the same writer here ]

I am writing this in response to the question “Are there limits to the right to freedom of expression? Explain your answer and, if your answer is yes, define the limits.” This essay is meant to generate discussion so please share your thoughts.

Defining Freedoms

In order to answer this question, I need to define what “freedom of expression” is and cite concrete examples of how this freedom is enjoyed. And because I am an LGBT Filipino, I will use references related to the LGBT experience of a gay man residing in the Philippines.

Let’s start with definitions. Article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.“[1] The American Convention on Human Rights[2], the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms[3], the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights[4], and the Philippine constitution[5] all contain something similar.

What this means for me is that as a Filipino citizen, my freedom to express my feelings and opinions is protected. I can express my sentiments against the Roman Catholic Church when they say that homosexuality is a sin, and I am free to use the Internet in posting photos of gay men celebrating the gains of the LGBT movement. In the same manner, individuals who subscribe to the catholic faith have the freedom to express their disapproval of my sexual orientation and have the freedom to form on-line groups and exchange ideas regarding their perceived immorality of homosexuality.

Limiting Freedoms

Although my freedom to express my thoughts is protected, the extent to which I express my thoughts is limited by various mechanisms in different contexts. For example, under Philippine law, there are limits to what I can say about the church. In fact, a recent art exhibit that was perceived to be blasphemous was closed down because it allegedly offended the beliefs of a religious sector.[6] In the context of social media, there are also mechanisms that attempt to limit freedom of expression where it impinges upon the rights of others. For example, as a Facebook user, I have an option to block and report users whose offensive statements target a specific set of people based on sexual orientation. I am able to use this same reporting mechanism to report Facebook groups and Facebook pages. [7]

If we go back to the declarations of human rights at the regional level, what’s common among them is the caveat that the freedom of expression indeed has limits. The American Convention on Human Rights states that “(a) respect for the rights or reputations of others; or (b) the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals.” The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms declares that “The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law…for the protection of the reputation or rights of others.” And finally, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights states that “Every individual shall have the right to express and disseminate his opinions within the law.” The message that is shared by these declarations is that there are two things that limit freedom of expression; laws and the respect for the rights of others. Of course, the latter is normally protected by the former.

Handling Hatred

Now that we have defined freedom of expression, described how it is enjoyed, and identified mechanisms that limit it, I will cite one clear example of expression that definitely needs to be limited. At least based on my experience, expressions and sentiments that have a negative impact on other people may be summarized with four letters, hate. Governments have responded differently to hate speech depending on its historical context and current realities. For example, in the UK, laws prohibit speech that provokes racial hatred. [8] In Germany, displaying the swastika or other Nazi symbols is illegal. Similarly, there are laws that address hate speech in the US and Canada. As far as the Philippines is concerned, there is still nothing outside of the blasphemy law that protects sectors of society from hate speech. In the recent months, influential people have gone scott-free despite making statements that might have been detrimental to the security of LGBT people. The 1999 Ms. Universe runner-up , Miriam Quiambao, made statements about her definition of womanhood[9]. This effectively sets back the gains of the transgender movement in the Philippines but there is no legal recourse to hold her accountable. Boxing champ, Manny Pacquiao allegedly declared that “Gay Men Should Be Put to Death.” [10] Because there is no hate speech law in the Philippines, the most that concerned citizens could do was demand a formal apology. In the US, however, the response was stronger than a demand for an apology, an establishment actually banned Pacquiao from entering its premises. [11]

Answering the Question
In summary, the right to freedom of expression must be limited because, if left unchecked, it opens up opportunities to violate the rights of others. Exactly how do we limit it? As with any international human rights instrument, there is rarely a clear cut process to define limits. There are extraneous factors to consider such as socio-economic realities, cultures, politics, etc. But one thing remains clear; that all rights are equal and interdependent. Therefore, when my freedom allows me to impinge upon yours, then this freedom must be limited. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.”

[1] American Convention on Human Rights - http://www.cidh.org/Basicos/English/Basic3.American%20Convention.htm
[2] European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights
[3] African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights - http://www.achpr.org/instruments/achpr/
[4] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights - http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
[5] Philippine Constitution (ARTICLE III Bill of Rights) - www.chanrobles.com/article3.htm
[6] Curates vs. curators: Does art transcend ‘blasphemy’? - http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=714316
[7] Facebook Help Center (Report Abuse or Policy Violations) - https://www.facebook.com/report/
[8] The Harm in Hate-Speech Laws - http://www.infowars.com/the-harm-in-hate-speech-laws/
[9] An Open Letter to Miriam Quiambao (1999 Ms. Universe Runner-Up) - http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/04/12/an-open-letter-to-miriam-quiambao-1999-ms-universe-runner-up/
[10] Update: Manny Pacquiao Did Not Say Gay Men Should Be Put to Death* - http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/05/manny_pacquiao_gays_put_to_death.php
[11] Manny Pacquiao Banned From The Grove Over Gay Marriage Comments (UPDATED) - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/manny-pacquiao-banned-fro_n_1521441.html

I love Arnold Clavio. I love how he handled his interview with Miriam Qiuambao and Naomi Fontanos (Chairwoman of Society of Transsexual Women of the Philippines) on the topic of transgender women being allowed to compete in the Ms. Universe pageant. Clavio kept the mood light, he did not show any bias or transphobia, and he asked the right questions.

I also love Naomi for not letting Miriam get away with her attempt to impose her version of the truth on Naomi. I love Naomi for standing up for transwomen and LGBT people.

But most of all, I love Miriam for embodying what a beauty queen should be. Sure, she does not completely understand the difference between sex and gender. Sure, by saying that womanhood is determined by chromosomes, she has effectively misinformed her more than 250,000 Twitter followers. But I don’t take this against her. It is irresponsible, definitely! But she is a beauty queen, not a gender and sexuality expert. So chill out!

I also love Miriam for using her own masculine childhood experience of playing with soldiers and “going on adventures” and how it did not turn her into a man. And of course, I agree that just because you played with dolls when you were young, it doesn’t mean you will become a woman. I’m not quite sure where she got this line of thinking but hey, beauty queens will be beauty queens. So don’t worry girls, you can do boy stuff and still be a beauty queen when you grow up. Take it from Miriam!

And I just love how she constantly used her faith throughout the discussion. Sure, it was arrogant of her to say that she knew the truth and Naomi didn’t. Hell, she was practically telling Naomi that Naomi’s entire life was a big lie! Sure, she probably doesn’t know that the existence of an absolute truth has been debated by philosophers for so many millennia. But on stage, “Leave it to God” will earn you more beauty queen points than “The truth in a particular context – (is) a statement that is known to be correct —ie. in accord with reality, as corroborated by evidence or related experience.”

So do I hate Miriam Quiambao? Of course not! This whole fuss just reinforced my original belief that beauty pageants should just be abolished in the first place. Miss Universe is run by a rude, disrespectful, macho businessman who cares about ticket sales — not gender equality. If it has to do with gender at all, it perpetuates gender stereotypes. It objectifies women and reduces beauty to being young, single, and infertile (read: get older than 27, marry your partner, or get pregnant and you are disqualified).

Do I love Miriam? Of course! Well, maybe not as much as before but I am still a huge fan of her outer beauty. You could say I’ve lost hope in her when I saw how things turned out after I wrote her an open letter. But when the dust has settled, when people start overreacting to other news, when we start getting used to small steps that lead to social change, I will continue to be amazed by Miriam’s statuesque pose. I will still watch Miriam get clobbered by Eugene Domingo in Kimmy Dora Part 2. And yes, Miriam Quiambao will continue to be Ms. Universe in my eyes!

Image from http://miriamquiambao.tripod.com/home.html

Logical debate is a necessary part of every activist’s life. But before engaging in a debate, make sure you ask yourself the following questions:

1. Do I know the subject? – For seasoned activists, this should be a given. But for newbies, it is normal to romanticize passion and equate it with victory. If you don’t think you can pull it off, leave it to the experts. If you think you can, make sure you have information handy.

2. Are my objectives realistic? – If you are about to argue with a religious fundamentalist with the intent of convincing the person to turn against faith, you might as well argue with a 10-foot tall slab of concrete. As a personal policy, I never engage in debate to win. I engage to educate and to learn.

3. Are we both clear on the parameters? – At the onset, make sure both of you know the rules. I generally do not engage if I know that Bible verses will be used against me. It defeats the purpose of a logical debate. But for some people, that is perfectly fine. So know what parameters work best for you.

4. Can I document the whole discussion? – If you can’t document the discussion, then be prepared for a lot of moving goalposts (discussed later). Documenting the discussion ensures that both of you have a way of getting back on track. It’s also a nifty way of catching contradictions.

5. Will this do more good than harm? – Sometimes, winning an argument will actually put you in a worse position or result in more damage to your cause. Be selective. Choose your battles.

If you answered “yes” to all these questions, then I present to you ten commonly used fallacies and what to do when they are used against you in logical debate (actual quotes from actual debates are found here):

Fallacy #1: Appeal to Nature – “This is the fallacy of assuming that whatever is “natural” or consistent with “nature” (somehow defined) is good, or that whatever conflicts with nature is bad”

Example:

“Marriage is only between a man and a woman because that is the natural law of things”

What you can do: Aside from explicitly calling out that this is a fallacy called “Appeal to Nature,” you can also point out that it is in our nature to get sick and eventually die. This means that preventing death and sickness from happening is unnatural. And yet we don’t consider modern medicine and doctors as “bad.”

Fallacy #2: Appeal to Popularity – “The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim.”

Example:

“I am against same-sex marriage because a majority of the population is against it.”

What you can do: As with the first fallacy and all the succeeding fallacies, it is a must that you call out what kind of fallacy the person is using. And then point out that in the past, a majority of the population also believed that the world was flat and the earth was the center of the universe. Both arguments turned out to be false. If you are in the US, you can also point out that last April, same-sex marriage supporters outnumbered the opposition for the first time. Unfortunately, we have no such survey in the Philippines yet.

Fallacy #3: Appeal to Tradition – “Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or “always has been done.”

Example:

“Marriage is reserved for heterosexuals because that’s how marriage has been defined for 2000 years”

What you can do: State that slavery was also acceptable for more than 2000 years but that does not make it right. Also state that the 2000 year old definition of marriage has already been redefined a decade ago when same-sex marriage was made legal in the following countries: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden.

Fallacy #4: Cherry Picking – “Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.”

Example: 

PERSON A: “Laws are based on natural moral standards”

PERSON B: “Then why did the Supreme Court disallow Comelec to use morality in denying Ladlad accreditation?”

PERSON A: “The Supreme Court respected Ladlad’s right to freedom of expression.”

*It is true that the Supreme Court cited the right to freedom of expression. But what PERSON A conveniently left out was that the Supreme Court’s ruling against the Comelec also included “Public Morals” as an invalid ground for blocking Ladlad, thereby disproving PERSON A’s original claim.

What you can do: Refute the claim by presenting the rest of the facts that the person left out. The complete and original text of the Supreme Court’s decision on the Ladlad vs Comelec case is available online. But put simply, the Supreme Court disallowed the Comelec to use Public Morals and Religious Belief to deny Ladlad accreditation. This is important jurisprudence because it tells the public that the use of morality and religion in deciding state affairs is unconstitutional.

Fallacy #5: False Analogy - “A false analogy is a rhetorical fallacy that uses an analogy (comparing objects or ideas with similar characteristics) to support an argument, but the conclusion made by it is not supported by the analogy due to the differences between the two objects.”

Example:

“Marriage is not for everyone. For example, minors can’t marry. Mentally handicapped people can’t marry. Humans can’t marry their pets”

What you can do: Explain why the analogies presented are not similar to the original argument. In this case, the family code of the Philippines requires legal consent from both parties, which minors, the mentally handicapped, and pets cannot provide. And then avoid analogies entirely because if they are not used smartly, they have the tendency to backfire.

Fallacy #6: Moving The Goalpost - ”The “Moving the Goalpost” logical fallacy is another one that has a fairly descriptive name. It is the case when Person A makes a claim, Person B refutes it, and Person A moves on to a new or revised claim, generally without acknowledging or responding to Person B’s refutation. Hence, the goalpost of the claim has been shifted or moved in order to keep the claim alive.”

Example:

PERSON A: “Moral relativism causes same-sex marriage!”

PERSON B: “But earlier, you said same-sex marriage causes moral relativism, not the other way around.”

PERSON A: “No, what I meant was same-sex marriage reinforces moral relativism. I admit that is was poorly constructed because I was in a hurry.”

What you can do: Keep track of how many times the person moves goalposts. If the person does this often enough, faulty logic will soon expose itself. The key here is documenting the entire conversation.

Fallacy #7: Presenting Opinion as Fact - ”In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person’s perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs.”

Example: 

“Laws are based on natural moral standards”

*when what the person really meant to say was “Laws should be based on natural moral standards”

What you can do: Assert that in the absence of facts, all you have is opinion. But be cautious, too, because not all facts are from credible sources. Prefer facts over stats because stats can be manipulated depending on who is doing the study.

Fallacy #8: Red Herring - ”A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic”

Example:

PERSON A: “It is not true that homosexuals were not allowed to run for public office”

PERSON B: “Ladlad was barred by Comelec”

PERSON A: “The Comelec didn’t just bar Ladlad because of homosexuality because that is oversimplifying the position. Just look at gay pride marches. It is embarrassing. But I’m not saying that just because homosexuals behave that way, they can be discriminated against. I don’t understand why people assume that just because I think homosexuality is disordered that I automatically want to bully homosexuals. That’s pretty immature.”

What you can do: Acknowledge the new information presented. But make sure that your acknowledgement is not taken as agreement. State the exact same question for emphasis before the red herring was thrown at you. Again, this is why documentation is key.

Fallacy #9: Slippery Slope - ”The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question.”

Example:

“Same-sex marriage will cause population implosion.”

What you can do: Ask “how” and ask for facts just a few repetitions short of ad nauseam. Let them ramble and eventually, they will run into self-contradictions. In which case, be ready for more moving goalposts and more red herrings.

Fallacy #10: Spotlight Fallacy - ”The Spotlight fallacy is committed when a person uncritically assumes that all members or cases of a certain class or type are like those that receive the most attention or coverage in the media.”

Example:

“Gays are not oppressed because that’s not what we see in the media”

What you can do: State factual evidence to the contrary. From an international perspective, the United Nations recently released its first report on LGBT rights. You can also download the Philippine LGBT Coalition report (which I co-authored Ü) to the UN’s Universal Periodic Review. It is a good resource for citing actual documented discrimination against LGBT people in the Philippines.

These are just some of the common fallacies I’ve encountered recently. If you know of more or have found other effective ways of handling them, help our readers and post your experience here.

Happy debating!

“Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world: all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it.” – Albert Einstein, 1954″

Dear dboncan,

Thank you for reading my article “Why LGBT people must get personal with the Catholic Church.” I read through the comments you made on the Filipino Freethinkers site and picked out 13 that I thought I could address immediately. The rest of your comments were clearly opinions that I know you will hold on to dearly so I will treat them with respect by setting them aside.

Let me be transparent with you. My objective for taking time and responding to you today is, at the most, to turn you into an ally, and at the least, to change some of your perceptions by giving you needed information.

Of course, this is only possible if both of us keep an open mind and remain calm and objective. So if, at any point, you show signs that you have closed your mind about the topic without hopes of turning you into an ally, or make personal remarks similar to your verbal attacks against the other commenters, then I will respectfully withdraw from the discussion.

Here goes.

Comment #1:

“Let’s see you are pissed because violence is done to them, well so am I. But the law protects everyone and if there is violence, are you telling me that the police won’t act on it just because the victim is homosexual?”

My response: Yes. There are several reported cases of police not enforcing the law because the victims or complainants were not heterosexual. There are even cases where police take advantage of the situation and harrass the complainant or extort money from them. If you need further information. I will refer you to the right organizations but I cannot post cases here because of confidentiality issues. The bottom line is, to say that “the law protects everyone” is only good on paper but it is not implemented in reality.

Comment #2:

Are you telling me that you want legislation that will penalize bullying of homosexuals… but what not weaklings, handicapped, etc… the bullying of homosexuals is because of the perception that they are weak.”

My response: Yes, we want that kind of legislation. But just because we cite examples of discrimination against LGBT people most of the time, it doesn’t mean we do not acknowledge the existence of discrimination against other vulnerable sectors. It only means that we are able to expound on these examples because they are closer to our daily experience. In the same manner, people with disabilities (PWDs) normally cite discrimination against PWDs but it doesn’t mean they don’t recognize the existence of discrimination against others, like, say, indigenous peoples. SB2814 is a bill that will give us, and other vulnerable sectors, that kind of protection.

“Legarda Hails Passage on Third Reading of Anti-Discrimination Bill” -http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2011/1122_legarda1.asp - accessed 2011-12-11

Comment #3:

“A comment above says he is pissed because he can’t hold hands in public without being looked at strangely, should we penalize staring behavior as well?”

My response: Please do not put words in my mouth. This is what I said:

“The truth is, the “Marxist mold” and the politics behind the LGBT movement are irrelevant to me when I can’t hold hands with my partner in public. To me, it is hardly political, it is personal.”

In the context of that paragraph, I did not say I was pissed, I did not say anything about being looked at strangely, and I did not demand penalizing staring behavior. All I did was illustrate my point that not everyone in the LGBT movement has a political agenda and not everything about LGBT activism is political. Sometimes, the discrimination we experience is very personal in nature and has little to do with the politics that Acosta was refering to in her presentation.

If you are referring to someone else’s comment, please post it here and I will gladly apologize for assuming I was the subject.

Comment #4:

“How can marriage be an absolute basic human right?”

My response: Because that’s what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says and as a member of the United Nations, the Philippine government has the obligation to protect, respect, promote, and fulfill this right as many countries have already done:

“Article 1. – All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

“Article 2. – Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.”

“Article 16. – (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”

“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” - http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml - accessed 2011-12-11

Comment #5:

“Can minors marry? why not if it is an absolute right? can mentally handicapped people marry? can humans opt to marry their pets?”

My response: These are all false analogies. Please refer to Article 16 Section 2 (above). You cannot get “free and full consent of the intending spouses” if your intending spouse is a minor, a pet, or mentally handicapped.

Comment #6:

“Some “rights” are not absolute some are.”

My response: This is simply incorrect. Being absolute is not a characteristic of human rights. Human rights are “Universal, Inalienable, Interdependent, Indivisible, Equal and Non-discriminatory”

“What are human rights?” - http://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/Pages/WhatareHumanRights.aspx - accessed 2011-12-11

Comment #7:

“Tell me how the LGBT are sidelined politically? Has any LGBT been disallowed the right to suffrage or to run for public office, given a drivers license, cedula, taxed higher, refused enrollment in school or refuses police protection solely by their orientation?”

My response: Yes. Ladlad Party List was disallowed in 2009 to run for public office. They were eventually allowed to run when the Supreme Court ruled in their favor but the case is a clear example of discrimination in politics based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In fact, the Supreme Court blasted the Commission on Elections for using the Bible and Quran in its decision. Here are the first two paragraphs of the Supreme Court’s ruling:

“Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that “[n]o law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” At bottom, what our nonestablishment clause calls for is “government neutrality in religious matters.”[24] Clearly, “governmental reliance on religious justification is inconsistent with this policy of neutrality.”[25]

We thus find that it was grave violation of the non-establishment clause for the COMELEC to utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad. Rather than relying on religious belief, the legitimacy of the Assailed Resolutions should depend, instead, on whether the COMELEC is able to advance some justification for its rulings beyond mere conformity to religious doctrine. Otherwise stated, government must act for secular purposes and in ways that have primarily secular effects.”

“G.R. No. 190582 – SC Decision on Ladlad vs Comelec” -http://icj.org/dwn/database/Ang%20Ladlad%20LGBT%20Party%20v.%20COMELEC.pdf - accessed 2011-12-11

People who live with partners of the same sex and raise a family are taxed higher because in the eyes of BIR, the tax status of both individuals is “single” and not “married with dependents.” But in reality, their expenses are comparable to expenses of heterosexual couples who enjoy tax benefits of being legally married.

We have documented cases of schools who conduct masculinity tests and reject students who fail this test. This discrimination also affects even heterosexuals who show signs of femininity.

Comment #8:

“I oppose this because its repercussions introduce a society where morality becomes relative to a persons preference and taste!”

My response: Morality has always been “relative to a persons preference and taste.” What is moral for a Christian might not be moral for a Muslim and vice versa. Thankfully, our government operates on the rules of law and not the rules of morality. As I’ve already mentioned above, the Supreme Court favored Ladlad Party List and struck down Comelec when it used morality as grounds to bar Ladlad party list from running for the 2010 elections.

Same-sex marriage is already legal in the following countries: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden

Can you explain the “repercussions” of same-sex marriage in these countries?

Comment #9:

“I oppose certain moves in granting homosexuals sweeping “rights” which should be rightly reserved for heterosexuals like marriage or adoption.”

My response: There are no rights that are “rightly reserved for heterosexuals” as this is clear violation of Article 2 of the universal declaration of human rights.

“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”

Comment #10:

“it does not follow that just because someone is productive, they can also contribute to the growth of society in the sense of which i was referring to, i.e. propagate and raise children.”

My response: There are heterosexuals who are unable to propagate and there are heterosexuals who simply want to marry but do not plan on having children. Since they are unable to contribute to the growth of society in the sense that you are referring to, should they be disallowed to marry?

Comment #11:

“It falsely imparts to children that there is such a thing as a third sex when there isn’t.”

My Response: You are right. There is no third sex. There is a whole spectrum of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities. And that is what children need to learn and understand.

Comment #12:

“It is a pretentious union with pretentious results.”

My response: I take offense in this statement. There is nothing pretentious about the celebration of two people being in love and committing their lives to each other. There is nothing pretentious about a person being able to claim inheritance benefits of their spouse, being a beneficiary to health insurance, visitation rights, etc. These results are very real and contribute to the well-being of a person. Please do not trivialize them by calling them pretentious.

Comment #13:

“cisgendered” seriously there is a term? the terms cis and trans used to be a chemical prefix and the word gender used to refer to parts of speech.” I am so amused, we get a chemical prefix and combine it with a reference to a part of speech and we have a sex that is somewhere in between male/female and homosexual.WOW!”

My response: Again, I take offense in your tone. All kinds of terms come up regularly in order to define human experience. Words like insulares, peninsulares, flips, chinks, jejemons, hipsters, dorks, nerds, squatters, kasambahay, whether with negative or positive connotations, were all coined because of the psycho-social need of certain sectors to create a group they can associate with or have an available term to refer to a sector of society. I highly doubt that international law experts, civil society groups, humanitarians, and diplomats said “WOW!” and were as “amused” as you were when they used these terms in drafting the Yogyakarta Principles and the UN resolution on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Also, there is no “sex that is somewhere in between male/female and homosexual.” Both males and females can actually identify as homosexual, transgender, or cisgender. Once you understand the intricacies of these terms, you might be less amused and might find more respect for the people who self-identify with these terms. Here are a couple of sites that might help you understand the terms:

“Transgender, Genderqueer, Cisgender… What Do These Terms Mean?’ -http://kinseyconfidential.org/transgender-genderqueer-cisgender-terms/ - accessed 2011-12-11

“TRANS 101: CISGENDER” - http://www.basicrights.org/uncategorized/trans-101-cisgender/ - accessed 2011-12-11

So again, I hope you take the information seriously. If, as early as now, you’ve already made a decision that I will be unsuccessful in either or both of my two objectives, then feel free to ignore this.

Thank you for your time.

Ronald “Ron” de Vera (aka rondevera)

| Read more from the same writer here |

–

Image from andresflava

When Pope John Paul II formally apologized for the persecution of Galileo, it was an apology that took the Catholic Church more than 300 years to make.

If it also needs 300 years for the Catholic Church to apologize for the persecution of LGBT people, then there is no better time for LGBT activists to start working on this but today. And there is a great opportunity today to open minds and provide accurate information to refute the statements of Dr. Ligaya Anacta Acosta, regional director of Human Life International (HLI) Asia and Oceania, that appeared on two different articles.

In the article “Being portrayed as oppressed is best way to public sympathy, homosexual activists told,” Acosta asked the following questions:

Read original article here | Read more from the same writer here

The sexuality of Supreme Court Spokesperson Midas Marquez has become the topic of debates when a video of him addressing the press went viral yesterday.

In the video, Marquez is seen reacting to a microphone falling off the podium. In less than 24 hours, the video has been shared more than 11,000 times on Facebook and has had more than 12,000 views and more than 100 comments on YouTube.

Here is an overview of how YouTube users have reacted to the video as of writing:

1. Yes, he is definitely gay – 28% (38/136)
2. I don’t care, this is funny – 27% (37/136)
3. Flagged as spam/removed – 18% (24/136)
4. No, this does not make him gay – 7% (9/136)
5. It doesn’t matter, he’s doing his job well – 5% (7/136)
6. Please think about the welfare of his children – 4% (6/136)
7. Yes, he is gay, and that is a pity because he is handsome – 4% (5/136)
8. Yes, he is gay, but it’s okay, he’s doing his job well – 4% (5/136)
9. I don’t care, he’s hot – 3% (4/136)
10. So what if he’s gay? – 1% (1/136)

(Data based on a total of 136 comments. Unrelated comments were not included)

What is worth mentioning is that some of the homophobic comments (both on YouTube and Facebook) were actually made by some people who self-identify as LGBT activists. Granted that LGBT activism in the Philippines has come a long way, such homophobic remarks are indicative of the level of maturity of this movement.

Marquez is not the first personality subjected to this debate. Not so recently, actors Piolo Pascual and Sam Milby were rumored to be a gay couple. Photos of them holding hands circulated on the Internet. Interestingly, arguments mostly revolved around whether the photos were authentic or manipulated and not whether holding hands with another man was evidence of homosexuality. The general theme of the discussions were that if the photos were authentic, then it was validation that Pascual and Milby were indeed in a homosexual relationship. Yet again, some LGBT activists participated in these fundamentally flawed discussions. It was proven later on that the photos were digitally enhanced.

Despite the lack of scientific evidence, we (laypeople and activists alike) seem to stubbornly hold on to this convenient belief that we can determine a person’s sexual orientation (whether the person is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or straight) just by observing the person’s gender expression (whether the person acts feminine or masculine based on socially accepted norms). It is not uncommon for people to claim that they have a functional “gaydar,” albeit they are not always able to explain their criteria.

Fortunately, this behavior is not innate. Humans are not born with the prejudice that men holding hands with other men are gay. For example, in Ethiopian culture, it is socially acceptable for men to hold hands with other men in public. This is not because Ethiopian culture is accepting of homosexuality, in fact, homosexuality is illegal in that country. Holding hands is acceptable because Ethiopians were not taught by their culture that this type of male-to-male gender expression is evidence of gay sexual orientation. Showing them photos of Pascual and Milby holding hands would mean absolutely nothing except that the two men are obviously friends.

At the end of the day, the question should not even be about sexual orientation or gender expression. We should strive for a society that has reached a level of acceptance wherein sexuality does not even figure in discussions. Call me strange but I think there are lessons to be learned from the perceived gayness of Midas Marquez and the men of Ethiopia.

Read original article here.

On October 27, the Statement of the Psychological Association of the Philippines (PAP) on “Non-Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression” was made public on PAP’s website.

According to the website, PAP’s non-discrimination statement aims to “eliminate stigma, prejudice, discrimination and violence against LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender)” people by supporting efforts to:

• oppose all public and private discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity and expression;

• repeal discriminatory laws and policies, and support the passage of legislation at the local and national levels that protect the rights and promote the welfare of people of all sexual orientations and gender identities and expressions;

• eliminate all forms of prejudice and discrimination against LGBTs in teaching, research, psychological interventions, assessment and other psychological programs;

• encourage psychological research that addresses the needs and concerns of LGBT Filipinos and their families and communities;

• disseminate and apply accurate and evidence-based information about sexual orientation and gender identity and expression to design interventions that foster mental health and wellbeing of LGBT Filipinos.

By releasing this statement, the PAP joins the ranks of other mental health professional organizations around the world in affirming that “lesbian, gay and bisexual orientations are normal variants of human sexuality.” These organizations include the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, British Psychological Society, the Colombian Society of Psychology, Psychological Society of South Africa, the Australian Psychological Society, and the International Network on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns and Transgender Issues in Psychology, among others.

A Society of Tolerance not Acceptance

The statement includes a general list of how LGBT Filipinos still experience stigma, prejudice and discrimination in Philippine society such as “bullying, teasing and harassment of LGBT children and adolescents in families, schools and communities; media portrayal of LGBTs as frivolous, untrustworthy and even dangerous or predatory; denying transgender Filipinos entry into commercial establishments; pigeonholing LGBT Filipinos into particularly limited roles and occupations; or curtailing their rights to participate in the political sphere.”

In addition to these cases of discrimination, there have also been an increasing number of reported LGBT killings. According to The Philippine LGBT Hate Crime Watch, a monitoring group that documents hate crimes in the Philippines, there have been more than 141 reported cases of LGBT people killed in the Philippines since 1996.

Long Journey

The release of this statement traces its roots all the way back to the beginning of 2011. In February, a PAP-certified clinical psychologist guested on the morning show Umagang Kay Ganda (Beautiful Morning) and stated on national TV that LGBT people can become straight and achieve a happy life by going through therapy.

According to Eric Julian Manalastas, an assistant professor of Psychology at the University of the Philippines – Diliman and a member of the PAP, this was a “misleading, inaccurate, and unethical statement.” It prompted him to write to PAP to ask the organization to take action on the matter. On October 8, the board of directors approved a statement that Manalastas drafted along with Prof. Jay Yacat, a professor from the same university.

The Real Work Begins

But the long journey doesn’t stop with the statement’s approval. “…when I saw it finally released on the official PAP mailing list and the website, I was thinking, wow now the work begins,” said Manalastas. He expects that out of the several commitments, the last one (disseminate and apply accurate and evidence-based information about sexual orientation and gender identity and expression) will have an immediate effect on the lives of LGBT Filipinos. “I would like to see all Filipino psychologists know that diversity in sexual orientation and gender identity is a compelling reality of human life…and that they apply and share this knowledge when they teach students, do research, talk to the media, and deliver professional services like counseling and therapy,” he added.

Personal Connection

Manalastas said he got a lot of personal satisfaction when the statement was released. He holds a strong connection to the issue as he and Yacat personally worked on the statement together until its approval. Despite the long journey and the challenge posed by society, Manalastas seemed hopeful and shared that “though few compared to in other countries, Filipino psychologists are well-placed (in schools, universities, organizations, clinics, etc.) and have a good opportunity to impact directly on the well-being, self-esteem, and personal identity of LGBT and non-LGBT Filipinos.”

###

Article also appears on Digital Journal